The United Nations has at its core, the peace and security of the member nations. The mission statement was built on the shoulders of the League of Nations which was founded after the Peace Treaty of Paris in 1925. Then, President Woodrow Wilson, believed that it was by international collaboration that world peace could be maintained. But, during the 1930’s, member nations Germany, Japan, Italy, and several others left the League. This was of course, the prelude to WWII in 1939. The League had no ability to stop the war or to deal with the horrible atrocities of that war. During the war, President Franklin Roosevelt worked on the promotion of the United Nations, which he believed would be the capstone of his presidency. And, although an idea founded in peace and security was noble, it has failed to even remotely live up to the expectations. So, where are we now?
Although there are several moving parts to the UN, the two most important elements are the 193 member nations of the general assembly, and the 15 nation security council. The cost of operations is dues based, and many nations are in arrears including the United States. So much for international cooperation! But the most critical part of the UN is the Security Council. Of the 15 nations, 5 are permanent members and 10 are elected from the general assembly for rotation. The permanent members are the United States, United Kingdom, France, China, and Russia. The problem is simply that for a resolution for action to take place, all five permanent members have to agree. With all of the cross-purposes of this elite group, it is no wonder that the UN has no teeth.
The basis for this post is the situation in Syria. Like so many of the wars, police actions, and civil wars in the world in the past 60 plus years, the UN has played only a limited role. The UN is perhaps the biggest political football in the world. And, the US is not without sin in this political quagmire. We have lobbied for our interest as have other member nations and it always ends in a stalemate.
There is an argument that can be made for the diplomatic relationships that are a result of the UN sessions. But, the question seems to be one of relative value when we look at the track record. We have a diplomatic group under the State Department as do other nations. So, is the United Nations irrelevant and should we face the fact that we will never find international consensus on any issue? My observation is that we will not see any change in how world governments conduct business and should be cautious as to how we expect the world to be; we do not want to be the world’s policeman, but the UN will never accept that responsibility…
Although there are several moving parts to the UN, the two most important elements are the 193 member nations of the general assembly, and the 15 nation security council. The cost of operations is dues based, and many nations are in arrears including the United States. So much for international cooperation! But the most critical part of the UN is the Security Council. Of the 15 nations, 5 are permanent members and 10 are elected from the general assembly for rotation. The permanent members are the United States, United Kingdom, France, China, and Russia. The problem is simply that for a resolution for action to take place, all five permanent members have to agree. With all of the cross-purposes of this elite group, it is no wonder that the UN has no teeth.
The basis for this post is the situation in Syria. Like so many of the wars, police actions, and civil wars in the world in the past 60 plus years, the UN has played only a limited role. The UN is perhaps the biggest political football in the world. And, the US is not without sin in this political quagmire. We have lobbied for our interest as have other member nations and it always ends in a stalemate.
There is an argument that can be made for the diplomatic relationships that are a result of the UN sessions. But, the question seems to be one of relative value when we look at the track record. We have a diplomatic group under the State Department as do other nations. So, is the United Nations irrelevant and should we face the fact that we will never find international consensus on any issue? My observation is that we will not see any change in how world governments conduct business and should be cautious as to how we expect the world to be; we do not want to be the world’s policeman, but the UN will never accept that responsibility…
RSS Feed
